Where does 36,000 denominations come from?

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

Now, Michael, we’ve been through all this many times. The Catholic Church is the original Church, with the Apostolic Succession, teaching a constant and coherent message. And you know that.

Protestantism, however, can’t manage to get its act together and keeps splitting.

Respectfully, my friend, that is YOUR opinion that has no value in and of itself. The evangelical church claims the same thing. So does the Eastern Orthodox. It is not what you CLAIM that matters.

“Protestant” is not a good word to use in this context, since you are simply defining it as “non-Roman Catholic.” Evangelicals could come up with a term that describes all non-evangelicals, and then place you among the thousands that are non-evangelical and say that we are unified and you keep spintering.

For example, lets say that the common name for all those who do not hold to the evangelical positions is “Spinters” just as the common name for those who don’t hold to the Roman Catholic position is “Protestants.” How many different denominations of “Splinters” are there? Thousands? Well, this proves that the evangelical church is the true Church since there is only one evangelical church. The Easter Orthodox church can do the same. So could all official denominations and traditions such as Baptists, JWs, and Mormons.

You see, the fallacy of ambiguity is often committed by RCs with the word “protestantism,” since, today, it simpy means non-catholic in most contexts.

If you want to deal with the unity of the evangelical faith, then you need to study up on it. Here is a good book I recommend edited by a Calvinist and an Arminian!!

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830832394/qid=1113587480/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-7683523-7499840?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Hope you are doing well my friend.
Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Respectfully, my friend, that is YOUR opinion that has no value in and of itself. The evangelical church claims the same thing. So does the Eastern Orthodox. It is not what you CLAIM that matters.

Respectfully, my friend, that is YOUR opinion that has no value in and of itself.

The Orthodox Church is recognized by the Catholic Church as having the Apostilic Succession. That is something no Protestant Church can credibly claim.

“Protestant” is not a good word to use in this context, since you are simply defining it as “non-Roman Catholic.” Evangelicals could come up with a term that describes all non-evangelicals, and then place you among the thousands that are non-evangelical and say that we are unified and you keep spintering

I could say the moon is made of green cheese, too – but that wouldn’t make it true…

michaelp:

If you want to deal with the unity of the evangelical faith, then you need to study up on it. Here is a good book I recommend edited by a Calvinist and an Arminian!!

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830832394/qid=1113587480/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-7683523-7499840?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Hope you are doing well my friend.
Michael

I can recommend a good book that “proves” earth was populated by beings from outer space, too.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[michaelp]

Respectfully, my friend, that is YOUR opinion that has no value in and of itself.

The evidence is all that matters. Not our opinion.

The Orthodox Church is recognized by the Catholic Church as having the Apostilic Succession. That is something no Protestant Church can credibly claim.

This is both question begging and assumes a definition of apostolic succession that is forced by your theology. I would define apostolic succession as carrying on the teachings of the apostles. You would define it as someone laying hands on someone else that confers some sort of “garauntee” of right teaching. The only way that you and I have to prove if we are true successors to the apostles is to look at the evidence. You look at it one way, I look at it another. However, your opinion and my opinion together along with a quarter will buy a coke. We have to go to the sources to prove it one way or another. “Claims” to apostolic succession mean nothing.

I could say the moon is made of green cheese, too – but that wouldn’t make it true…

OK . . . but the analogy is still valid. Considering that you dodge explaining why the analogy is wrong, I will assume that it still stands.

I can recommend a good book that “proves” earth was populated by beings from outer space, too.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I have been looking for one of those. Thanks.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

The evidence is all that matters. Not our opinion.

And the evidence is Peter was appointed by Christ, carried out the duties assigned him, and his successors carried on with his duties.

By the way, I noticed your lateral arabesque on the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians – pretending its sole value is as evidence Peter was in Rome.

Actually, we both know that the real value is that it shows Clement acting with authority outside his see, at a time when at least one Apostle was still alive, and being recognized as having authority to do so.

michaelp:

This is both question begging and assumes a definition of apostolic succession that is forced by your theology. I would define apostolic succession as carrying on the teachings of the apostles.

Right – anyone who finds a bible can take over the role of an Apostle. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

michaelp:

You would define it as someone laying hands on someone else that confers some sort of “garauntee” of right teaching. The only way that you and I have to prove if we are true successors to the apostles is to look at the evidence. You look at it one way, I look at it another. However, your opinion and my opinion together along with a quarter will buy a coke. We have to go to the sources to prove it one way or another. “Claims” to apostolic succession mean nothing.

Especially claims based on nothing more than reading the Bible.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

michaelp:

OK . . . but the analogy is still valid. Considering that you dodge explaining why the analogy is wrong, I will assume that it still stands…

Haven’t dodged a thing, Michael. I’ve just told you in my gently humourous way that reification is one thing, reality another.

michaelp:

I have been looking for one of those. Thanks.

Michael

It might start you out on a whole new quest.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Catholic_Dude]

How can you talk about history, unification, teachings, etc when we already went over this here History?

 

[michaelp]

And the evidence is Peter was appointed by Christ, carried out the duties assigned him, and his successors carried on with his duties.

By the way, I noticed your lateral arabesque on the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians – pretending its sole value is as evidence Peter was in Rome.

Actually, we both know that the real value is that it shows Clement acting with authority outside his see, at a time when at least one Apostle was still alive, and being recognized as having authority to do so.

No one denies anyone authority. But when you pack the word with your claims to infallibile and absolute authority, you go beyond tradition and WAY beyond Scripture. Again, fallacy of ambiguity. You load everything in history and Scripture with the presuppositions of Rome. When this is the hermeneutical method you can come to any conclusion you choose.

Right – anyone who finds a bible can take over the role of an Apostle. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Again, the fallacy of ambiguity. You think of apostolic succession as carrying on an “office” in which you presuppose infallibility and absolute authority. I say that it is carrying on the teaching of the apostles like those of the early Church. My advice: take of your sunglasses from Rome and read without such a committment to your presuppositions.

Especially claims based on nothing more than reading the Bible.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The Bible is the only proven and infallible source of revelation, but this does not mean that it is the only source. Use tradition, but use it wisely, recognizing its inherent limitations.

Haven’t dodged a thing, Michael. I’ve just told you in my gently humourous way that reification is one thing, reality another.

OK then tell my why my analogy is wrong.

It might start you out on a whole new quest.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

“To die is the only adventure left”
-James T. Hook


Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic Dude:

How can you talk about history, unification, teachings, etc when we already went over this here History?

I don’t get it. How can we not? My church, Stonebriar Community Church, is a local arm of the Church universal that resides under the authority of Christ.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic Dude:

How can you talk about history, unification, teachings, etc when we already went over this here History?

He’s a one-trick pony.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

michaelp:

I don’t get it. How can we not? My church, Stonebriar Community Church, is a local arm of the Church universal that resides under the authority of Christ.

Michael

I dont know why, but that link didnt get the whole picture,
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23902&page=3
here is the original statements with the two posts that never got responded to.

How can you say “local arm” when there are eaily a hundred churches in that area? And also what church doesnt claim they are under the authority of Christ?

There should be common definitions between two groups who both claim to use the Bible. The Bible lists very important rules for authority and in turn future successors.

 

[Pete2]

What you clever apologists fail to realize, as you pat yourselves on the back for Catholics being so unified and superior to Protestants, is that among the world’s 1 billion Catholics, there are probably more than 36,000 viewpoints for what Catholicism even means. Even though we’re unifed in name, we’re really no more unified than the other 1 billion Christians out there.

This isn’t even debatable… just pick-up any Catholic periodical, and you can read all day about divisions and disagreements within the Church. What’s the difference whether they officially break from the Church, or if they disagree in their hearts? It’s still a division.

In fact, before I stumbled across this website, I never met a single Catholic in my life, including myself, that believes 100% in what the Church teaches.

Pete

 

[Catholic_Dude]

There are things that you dont “have to believe” in order to be in good standing in the CC.

Can you think of anything that has been preserved to the degree of the CC that is anywhere near as old as the CC?
The words of Christ have been passed down, the precious words have been preserved all the way up until the printing press there were people hand copying the pages. The CC remembers the saints, it doesnt forget the Apostles, Early Church Fathers, Councils, etc. All are remembered. Can you think of any group that does this? Christ established only one Church, nobody said it was smooth sailing, Jesus chose sinners to lead the Church, but wasnt going to let His Church fail its mission.

There is nothing wrong with opinion there is something wrong with dissent that leads to division. The Church isnt in the business of controling every thought and action the way people might think, there is a lot of room to hold your own opinion on what happened or why something is.

The fact that any given Catholic or Paper says something contrary to what the Church teaches is a non issue, the Church stands on its ruling, if they dont like it then they are free to leave.

There are things you must believe to be Catholic, otherwise your just pretending. There are many other things where debates and opinions can be formed and not go against the Church.
Here is an example, You must believe that the Church contains the fullness of truth if you want to be Catholic. But other issues like how the great flood took place holds a level of freedom of interpretation.

 

[michaelp]

How can you say “local arm” when there are eaily a hundred churches in that area? And also what church doesnt claim they are under the authority of Christ?

What is the matter with their being hundreds of Churches in Frisco. We have close to 100,000 people. Our church serves just 3500 of them. There are other churches serve as local arms also. We are in contact and communion with these churches in fulfilling the great commission in our areas. We help each other out, all existing under the banner of our evangelical confession. It is not a forced unity either.

There should be common definitions between two groups who both claim to use the Bible. The Bible lists very important rules for authority and in turn future successors.

And we follow by the rules that Paul laid out to Timothy. I was ordained according to those rules.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Pete2:

What you clever apologists fail to realize, as you pat yourselves on the back for Catholics being so unified and superior to Protestants, is that among the world’s 1 billion Catholics, there are probably more than 36,000 viewpoints for what Catholicism even means. Even though we’re unifed in name, we’re really no more unified than the other 1 billion Christians out there.

This isn’t even debatable… just pick-up any Catholic periodical, and you can read all day about divisions and disagreements within the Church. What’s the difference whether they officially break from the Church, or if they disagree in their hearts? It’s still a division.

In fact, before I stumbled across this website, I never met a single Catholic in my life, including myself, that believes 100% in what the Church teaches.

Pete

Great post Pete. I agree–unified in name is nothing. You look at the “Cafeteria Catholics” on the street and I look to this forum and see great disunity. What matters is pretty simple, “Who do you say that Christ is?” If He is God and savior, then you have more true unity with other Christians than any catechism or Pope can force you into.

Michael

 

[Pete2]

Catholic Dude:

The fact that any given Catholic or Paper says something contrary to what the Church teaches is a non issue, the Church stands on its ruling, if they dont like it then they are free to leave.

I’m not just talking about the media, I’m talking about actual people and what happens in their lives.

The Church of England was basically founded on the fact that a king wanted to get a divorce, and the pope wouldn’t allow it, right? What about the hundereds of thousands…millions?.. of Catholics today who have gotten divorces without getting annulments. I know several personally, and they still call themselves Catholic and are listed as members of the Church by their parishes.

Do you think that every Catholic out there uses NFP as their only method of birth control? That every Catholic waits until marriage to have sex? This isn’t Noah and the flood type stuff, this is everyday stuff that is pretty fundamental to what JPII preached about on a daily basis.

I love the Church, and I am moved by it’s great history and direct connection to Jesus Christ. No question. I’m just a little annoyed at the superiority complex that’s going here on this website over everyone else. Or that apologists are “doing battle” and getting all angry and heated in their defense of the Church, just to win arguments. Does anyone remember Jesus acting like this??? It’s really un-Christ-like.

Let’s try to work out our own problems as Catholics before we go around belittling other non-Catholic Christians.

Pete

 

[Church_Militant]

Pete2:

What you clever apologists fail to realize, as you pat yourselves on the back for Catholics being so unified and superior to Protestants, is that among the world’s 1 billion Catholics, there are probably more than 36,000 viewpoints for what Catholicism even means. Even though we’re unifed in name, we’re really no more unified than the other 1 billion Christians out there.

This isn’t even debatable… just pick-up any Catholic periodical, and you can read all day about divisions and disagreements within the Church. What’s the difference whether they officially break from the Church, or if they disagree in their hearts? It’s still a division.

In fact, before I stumbled across this website, I never met a single Catholic in my life, including myself, that believes 100% in what the Church teaches.

Pete

What you fail to realize is that those who choose to dissent are not catholics in good standing anyway and that there is NO division in the doctrines of the church. Unlike the however-too-many myriad of n-C churches that can’t agree even on the essential doctrines of Christianity (such as baptism). As for you…you probably never sat down and checked out what the church teaches on most things and why, so your own ignorance worked against you. You assumed that there was no one that believes all the Church teaches

Dissenters have no "denominations’ of their own, and even better, have better sense than to declare that they have the authority to change church teaching. they have better sense than to attempt to create new winds of doctrine based on their own understanding of the Bible.

None of the ridiculously prolific n-c denoms have a single authorative voice with which they speak and even they argue among themselves and castigate one another. I don’t know what “Catholic” publications you read to feed your opinion. but the faithul Catholic ones that I read show no such foolishness.

As for your alleged “superiority complex” that you say annoys you, well I’d have to say that you could stand to take a lesson from thos who choose to stand with your church that you say you love so much and take not of the bunk that is handed out about it by people who belong to that passle of n-C and sometime a-C churches. I don’t “belittle” anyone else’s religions and I resent your implying that I and the other posters on here do. You are a noob…and I haven’t seen you address any of the highly bigoted attacks by anti-Catholics on this site yet. Until you’ve attempted to reason with an attack dog, I suggest that you have a look around and get to know what’s really goin’ on .

If I wanna know what the Catholci Church teaches about anything all I have to do is turn to the Holy See and I’ll get the diffinitve answer… (and here is that site link, so you don’t have to “stumble” upon it too: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

Great post Pete. I agree–unified in name is nothing. You look at the “Cafeteria Catholics” on the street and I look to this forum and see great disunity. What matters is pretty simple, “Who do you say that Christ is?” If He is God and savior, then you have more true unity with other Christians than any catechism or Pope can force you into.

Michael

This only works with people like you Mike. And it’s a lot more than unified in name…you make a big mistake with that statement right there.

As I told Pete2…if I want a definitive statement on what I believe as a Catholic, all I have to do is follow the Holy See. You can’t say that about all the n-C denoms, because on their best day they are just a bunch of people waving Bibles and telling us that they have the truth when they can’t even definitively all agree on what that Bible teaches. Don’t knock my church when ya have no one in a position to give a definitive answer about much of anything.
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

This only works with people like you Mike. And it’s a lot more than unified in name…you make a big mistake with that statement right there.

As I told Pete2…if I want a definitive statement on what I believe as a Catholic, all I have to do is follow the Holy See. You can’t say that about all the n-C denoms, because on their best day they are just a bunch of people waving Bibles and telling us that they have the truth when they can’t even definitively all agree on what that Bible teaches. Don’t knock my church when ya have no one in a position to give a definitive answer about much of anything.

This is silly. I could say, “If you want to know what my church believes, just look at the Bible.” It does not come down to what someone or something says, it is what you believe. This was Pete’s concern and is still valid. Evangelicals are only unified in confession of the five solas and the first three eccumenical creeds. But this does not mean that everyone who claims to be evangelical believes it. The difference is that we are unified based upon what Scripture says and this unity comes about willfully; it does not need some outside “authority” that produces your “unity.” Respectfully Michael, you don’t understand Pete’s concern which is valid. There are not many “true” Catholics who see things the way you do. They live all over the board. I have many who are in The Theology Program who don’t believe the way you do, interpreting history and the Magisterium different. Unity is based upon a confession of Jesus Christ as God and Savior. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, or any other tradition who truly calls upon the name of the Lord, no matter what name or title they exist under, are unified under one head, Jesus Christ.

You and I are part of the same Church being built by the Holy Spirit through proclaimation of the Gospel. I do hope one day you will understand that.

Again, if you want a better understanding of the unity that exists, see this book: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830832394/qid=1113605842/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-7683523-7499840?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

If you don’t, well I guess you will hold tight to your misunderstanding.

Michael

 

[Milliardo]

The difference is that we are unified based upon what Scripture says and this unity comes about willfully; it does not need some outside “authority” that produces your “unity.”

Fact is, though, you’re not even unified on what Scripture says.

Respectfully Michael, you don’t understand Pete’s concern which is valid. There are not many “true” Catholics who see things the way you do.

Actually there are many Catholics who think the way Church Militant does.

I have many who are in The Theology Program who don’t believe the way you do, interpreting history and the Magisterium different.

I see in your profile you’re Evangelical Protestant. Let me guess–those “Catholics” you claim to think differently are the ones who left the Church, right?

Unity is based upon a confession of Jesus Christ as God and Savior. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, or any other tradition who truly calls upon the name of the Lord, no matter what name or title they exist under, are unified under one head, Jesus Christ.

Yes, that is so; what’s your point then?

You and I are part of the same Church being built by the Holy Spirit through proclaimation of the Gospel.

Not so. Protestantism’s history bears that out most clearly. There must be unity in belief to say that, but unfortunately not even Protestantism itself can make that claim.

 

[michaelp]

Fact is, though, you’re not even unified on what Scripture says.

Not on EVERYTHING Scripture say, your are right . . . hey . . . just like you. You are not unified on EVERYTHING either, right? We are united on the essentials: 5 solas and the first three eccumenical creeds/definitions.

Actually there are many Catholics who think the way Church Militant does.

I am saying comparitively speaking, there are 1 billion people who “profess” Catholicism. I know many. None I have ever met believe the way you do and think they are Roman Catholics just like you.

I see in your profile you’re Evangelical Protestant. Let me guess–those “Catholics” you claim to think differently are the ones who left the Church, right?

Some, but not all. Some choose to stay in the Roman Catholic church because in their see they don’t interpret things like you do. All who are in The Theology Program either convert or remain Roman Catholics who believe in salvation by faith alone and do not adhere to the infallibility of the Pope. There is a great diversity of Roman Catholics out there all who interpret things differently. Therefore, they are united in name, but not in heart.

Yes, that is so; what’s your point then?

Hey, no point I guess. We are on the same page!!

Not so. Protestantism’s history bears that out most clearly. There must be unity in belief to say that, but unfortunately not even Protestantism itself can make that claim.

First, “Protestant” is a term that simply means non-Catholic and will not due. Here is what I posted earlier:

“Protestant” is not a good word to use in this context, since you are simply defining it as “non-Roman Catholic.” Evangelicals could come up with a term that describes all non-evangelicals, and then place you among the thousands that are non-evangelical and say that we are unified and you keep spintering.

For example, lets say that the common name for all those who do not hold to the evangelical positions is “Spinters” just as the common name for those who don’t hold to the Roman Catholic position is “Protestants.” How many different denominations of “Splinters” are there? Thousands? Well, this proves that the evangelical church is the true Church since there is only one evangelical church. The Easter Orthodox church can do the same. So could all official denominations and traditions such as Baptists, JWs, and Mormons.

You see, the fallacy of ambiguity is often committed by RCs with the word “protestantism,” since, today, it simpy means non-catholic in most contexts.

If you want to deal with the unity of the evangelical faith, then you need to study up on it. Here is a good book I recommend edited by a Calvinist and an Arminian!!

amazon.com/exec/obidos/t…=books&n=507846

Second, Evangelicals see themselves as carrying on the historic Church, and Roman Catholicism arising in the late middle-ages, so your assumptions are not valid.

Hope that you are doing well and thanks for joining,

Michael

 

[Milliardo]

michaelp:

Not on EVERYTHING Scripture say, your are right . . . hey . . . just like you. You are not unified on EVERYTHING either, right?

Individual Catholics may not necessarily agree with how the Magisterium says it, but that’s our point of contention. The point is that the Church teaches it with unity with all her bishops and priests. Protestantism doesn’t do so in the first place.

“Protestant” is not a good word to use in this context, since you are simply defining it as “non-Roman Catholic.”

Not necessarily. Protestants are defined as those who follow the teachings of Luther and Calvin, and that would include as well the diverse denominations that have branched off from them but still conform to their teachings. We do not then call Orthodox Christians as Protestants, do we now? Yet they’re nor Catholics.